Trust you to bring out the familiar punching bag of Fox News. Here's one difference. Daily Kos rarely, if ever, has any dissenting voices to their political bias. You may argue as to their effectiveness, but Fox regularly has "left leaning" personalities on air to present opposing opinions.

I need to correct you here, because you've made a bit of a false equivalency. Daily Kos is a left-leaning blog and identifies itself as such; I think a better comparison would be to a publication like The Nation or Z Magazine, which are also forums of publication for liberal views and also identify themselves as left-wing publications.

Fox, on the other hand, advertises itself as non-partisan when this is not true. They're not a very credible source of information (for many reasons; perhaps I'll expand on this later), and they're not really a good source if you're trying to get a variety of viewpoints. Neither is the Daily Kos, but the Kos at least correctly identifies itself.

_________________Death is pretty finalI'm collecting vinylI'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.

As has been mentioned, there is a difference in programming on Fox between its straight news delivery and its commentary programs. And while the latter is unabashedly conservative minded, the former is intended to be less so.

Now I'm not really in a position to go into a full court press defense of Fox News because a) I haven't had cable TV for about 2 years so don't even have access to the network and b) I don't really have the time or inclination to do so, but at certain points, when hyperbole is thrown out with predictable regularity, it grows tiresome. I wasn't the first one to conflate Fox News with Daily Kos, and while I am not a regular consumer of either, the limited exposure I have had to each easily leads me to the conclusion that one is certainly more balanced and factual than the other; which was kinda the point.

Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:04 pm

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3850Location: Zion, IL

Re: American Politics

Sexual Chocolate wrote:

Johnny Larue wrote:

Trust you to bring out the familiar punching bag of Fox News. Here's one difference. Daily Kos rarely, if ever, has any dissenting voices to their political bias. You may argue as to their effectiveness, but Fox regularly has "left leaning" personalities on air to present opposing opinions.

I need to correct you here, because you've made a bit of a false equivalency. Daily Kos is a left-leaning blog and identifies itself as such; I think a better comparison would be to a publication like The Nation or Z Magazine, which are also forums of publication for liberal views and also identify themselves as left-wing publications.

Fox, on the other hand, advertises itself as non-partisan when this is not true. They're not a very credible source of information (for many reasons; perhaps I'll expand on this later), and they're not really a good source if you're trying to get a variety of viewpoints. Neither is the Daily Kos, but the Kos at least correctly identifies itself.

Right, Fox advertises themselves as being "fair and balanced" which is a complete joke, they NEVER present counterpoints from the left that i've seen.

Daily Kos is certainly much more "balanced" and "factual" then that farce of a news program, and believe it or not they have spoken out against certain views held by the left as well(like the NSA spying thing).

And can you finally drop the moniker "Faux News"? Ha-ha, we got it the first 300 times. It's not really all that clever.

I'm going to keep using that moniker as they don't deserve the ignity of being refered to by their actual name.

Oh and that blog really didn't explain what was "wrong" Daily Kos very well.

I have watched their news broadcasts before a few times while flippnig through channels out of curiousity to see how low they could possibly sink, and I couldn't stand to watch more then a few minutes.

Last edited by Vexer on Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

think that it is problematic to compare the political spectrum of two countries by using the same terminology. For example, wouldn't support for the private ownership of firearms be considered a conservative viewpoint in the U.S.? I think the Tories would strongly oppose this. Likewise, I cannot imagine a U.S. Republican supporting the monarchy as an institution.

I think you're wrong on both counts.

The Conservatives are right leaning by UK standards, but about on par politically with the US Democrats. That said, the Right of the Conservatives do have sympathy for firearms. Remember Hot Fuzz? "there's more guns in the country than the city". Also true of Conservative voters proportionally

And, paradoxically perhaps, the Republicans in the US seem far more receptive to our Royalty than the Democrats. It appeals to their sense of natural order

_________________... because I'm a wild animal

Last edited by NotHughGrant on Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This is interesting. I'm surprised Roger Ailes hired Carville; most of the liberals on Fox are usually there for token purposes, to get beat up on, you know? But Carville isn't that type; it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

_________________Death is pretty finalI'm collecting vinylI'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.

And, paradoxically perhaps, the Republicans in the US seem far more receptive to our Royalty than the Democrats. It appeals to their sense of natural order

I got no problem with your Royalty as long as that's how it stays...yours. Have no desire for such a system over here.

Part of it is, as you mentioned, that they don't wield much true political power so why should I care if your people want to fund such an institution. There is the "romantic nature" of royalty that just about every American kid gets enthralled with, but then (hopefully) grows out of.

Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:28 pm

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1728

Re: American Politics

For what it's worth, none of the cable news stations have much information value by themselves. Their ability to inform tends to fare badly when their viewership is compared to people who use multiple other news sources to get their information--Internet outlets, news magazines, etc.

One key difference between a TV network (ex. Fox News) and a weblog (ex. Daily Kos) is that a large portion of TV network viewers use that TV network as their primary source of information. People who read blogs are probably reading from multiple sources. While there's a tendency toward the echo chamber effect either way, more sources means more room for nuance and varied perspectives.

I want to stress that this is in no way a partisan phenomenon, but it may be a phenomenon that hews to other demographic lines, such as age or education level.

24 hour cable news is infotainment at best and should not be confused as anything else, regardless of how the networks bill themselves. They're platforms for expressing the interests of their sponsors. I'm not saying they're straight-up propaganda, but expect their coverage and editorial positions to conform to the perspectives of the people paying for them. That's just how it is.

If I have any grudge against Fox News in particular, it's that they seem to pander a lot more to "regular folks" than the others. And I put "regular folks" in scare quotes because it's a particularly distorted vision of "regular folks" that seems to exist mainly in the minds of Fox News programmers. Example: Gretchen Carlson, who has cultivated a ditzy and ignorant (and therefore nonthreatening) image, despite being very well-educated and artistic.

-

Full disclosure: I avoid the 24 hour news networks if I can help it, and what I know of their coverage comes partly through osmosis. I'm mainly an online news reader and an occasional Daily Show watcher, so I'm sure that much of what I've seen of these networks skews toward their lesser moments... but really, if they're allowed to get that bad at all, then their standards are abysmal, no matter how good they are on their best days.

And, in fairness to myself, I'm not sure I've ever chanced upon coverage from any of these networks that didn't conform to my understanding of their programming, and I find it unlikely that I just happen to tune in during those rare moments when they're putting their feet in their mouths.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:29 pm

Shade2

Second Unit Director

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 amPosts: 471

Re: American Politics

Vexer wrote:

Daily Kos is certainly much more "balanced" and "factual" then that farce of a news program

They are not in any sense balanced. That's simply inaccurate. They are left-leaning in every possible way.

And they've long ago given up the right to be factual with both intentional and unintentional lies. This article in particular is rich:

I can't judge the heart and mind of the author, but there are only two possible choices: she knows that she's lying and she's willingly doing so, or she never ready any of the actual health bill and is posting her hopes as facts. Either way it's straight-up lying.

And, paradoxically perhaps, the Republicans in the US seem far more receptive to our Royalty than the Democrats. It appeals to their sense of natural order

I got no problem with your Royalty as long as that's how it stays...yours. Have no desire for such a system over here.

Part of it is, as you mentioned, that they don't wield much true political power so why should I care if your people want to fund such an institution. There is the "romantic nature" of royalty that just about every American kid gets enthralled with, but then (hopefully) grows out of.

Exactly, you don't care my much either way. Whereas some American liberals are hostile to the notion on ideological grounds

_________________... because I'm a wild animal

Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:50 pm

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3850Location: Zion, IL

Re: American Politics

Shade2 wrote:

Vexer wrote:

Daily Kos is certainly much more "balanced" and "factual" then that farce of a news program

They are not in any sense balanced. That's simply inaccurate. They are left-leaning in every possible way.

And they've long ago given up the right to be factual with both intentional and unintentional lies. This article in particular is rich:

I can't judge the heart and mind of the author, but there are only two possible choices: she knows that she's lying and she's willingly doing so, or she never ready any of the actual health bill and is posting her hopes as facts. Either way it's straight-up lying.

How on earth is she "lying"? Many members of the right are trying to smear Obamacare by spouting completely inaccurate facts, they're the ones who are "lying".

Let's just get this straight: If you already have insurance, Obamacare is not taking it away. If you do lose it, it's because your employer has dropped your coverage. It's true that some employers might drop it, either to make a political point or because it would cost them less to pay the penalty for not providing coverage than to continue to carry it. But that's not something Obamacare is forcing them to do.

There are many people who are losing the insurance policy they have because Obamacare has changed the minimum requirements required by all insurance policies. I'm not sure, but I think on the off-chance that the insurance company still offers that non-qualifying policy, you can still buy it and pay the Obamacare penalty...er...tax...er...whatever it is. But to say that the ACA did not cause your policy to no longer be available, or to retain it means paying the penalty, is a lie.

Let's just get this straight: If you already have insurance, Obamacare is not taking it away. If you do lose it, it's because your employer has dropped your coverage. It's true that some employers might drop it, either to make a political point or because it would cost them less to pay the penalty for not providing coverage than to continue to carry it. But that's not something Obamacare is forcing them to do.

There are many people who are losing the insurance policy they have because Obamacare has changed the minimum requirements required by all insurance policies. I'm not sure, but I think on the off-chance that the insurance company still offers that non-qualifying policy, you can still buy it and pay the Obamacare penalty...er...tax...er...whatever it is. But to say that the ACA did not cause your policy to no longer be available, or to retain it means paying the penalty, is a lie.

How on earth is she "lying"? Many members of the right are trying to smear Obamacare by spouting completely inaccurate facts, they're the ones who are "lying".

So when she spouts inaccurate facts it's okay, but if the right does so OMG THEY ARE LYING. Please.

Vexer wrote:

The CBS reports on Obamacare are completely and utterly false and have been widely discredited by many.

So no it isn't a "lie" at all.

Umm... did you read the article you posted? She writes (accurately):

Quote:

Obamacare cancels many insurance policies that individuals chose based on their wants, needs, or ability to afford, and it replaces those plans with what the government deems “better” insurance. But this leaves little choice for consumers and increases costs.

Though there were problems in the insurance market before Obamacare was enacted, the scale of those issues does not match the scale of regulatory authority and coercion created by Obamacare. It is Obamacare’s new health insurance regulations that threaten to destabilize the market and make the present situation much worse, particularly in terms of cost. There are more common-sense ways to address the existing problems that do not require massive disruptions of coverage for millions of others.

I personally lost a good and fair and cheap-ish policy because of Obamacare, and that plan no longer exists even if I wanted to pay the penalty. There is no useful insurance for me to have under Obamacare that even approaches affordability, and I am now forced to pay the penalty and pray I stay healthy. And that's fine, I'm blessed and have little needs unless I get hurt or severely ill. Obamacare is by no means good for everyone, and by no means does it help all the poor or the uninsured. The idea that only rich people are against it is indeed a myth.

So it is a flat-out lie when the Daily Kos article says "If you already have insurance, Obamacare is not taking it away." Technically, yes, it comes from employers or insurers changing their plans to comply with Obamacare, but the fact that the President and Daily Kos and others are saying "Obamacare isn't taking anything away!" is asinine and insulting. It's like using a bulldozer to push a boulder down a hill and then blaming the hill for the damage the boulder does.

Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:11 pm

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3850Location: Zion, IL

Re: American Politics

She hasn't posted any "inaccurate facts" and I fail to see anything "asinine" or "insulting" about the system.

Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:19 pm

roastbeef_ajus

Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pmPosts: 313

Re: American Politics

First: Fox News is right leaning, but it is one of the only ones. The left has CNBC, CNN, and they don't even try to hide it. Also don't look at the news channels, look behind them and see who owns them, and then see who those companies give campaign donations for.

Second: Lets just throw the cards on the table and be honest with one another.

Vexer is obviously a liberal. I think he hates Reagan and Bush with all his might and he will always vote for a strong democrat. He supports Obama, and it almost seems he agrees blindly with every one of his policies. He just doesn't like certain types of people...namely conservative republicans for there "racist, sexist, homophobic, god fearing, ways." If he wants to continue to live in his little corner, that's fine.

I will probably always be against Obama and the democratic policies that he advocates. I want him out as soon as possible. I don't hate the man, I just think he sucks as a president. If I got the chance to meet him, I certainly would because as an American, you DON'T disrespect the institution of the Presidency. I would shake his hand, call him Mr. President, and have probably a 1000 questions for him...but I want him out. Also, Vex, it has nothing to do with his skin color. If Dr. Ben Carson were to get the nomination in 2016, I would vote for him in a second (as per the information I have right now).

Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:21 pm

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3850Location: Zion, IL

Re: American Politics

roastbeef_ajus wrote:

First: Fox News is right leaning, but it is one of the only ones. The left has CNBC, CNN, and they don't even try to hide it. Also don't look at the news channels, look behind them and see who owns them, and then see who those companies give campaign donations for.

Second: Lets just throw the cards on the table and be honest with one another.

Vexer is obviously a liberal. I think he hates Reagan and Bush with all his might and he will always vote for a strong democrat. He supports Obama, and it almost seems he agrees blindly with every one of his policies. He just doesn't like certain types of people...namely conservative republicans for there "racist, sexist, homophobic, god fearing, ways." If he wants to continue to live in his little corner, that's fine.

I will probably always be against Obama and the democratic policies that he advocates. I want him out as soon as possible. I don't hate the man, I just think he sucks as a president. If I got the chance to meet him, I certainly would because as an American, you DON'T disrespect the institution of the Presidency. I would shake his hand, call him Mr. President, and have probably a 1000 questions for him...but I want him out. Also, Vex, it has nothing to do with his skin color. If Dr. Ben Carson were to get the nomination in 2016, I would vote for him in a second (as per the information I have right now).

I'm mostly liberal with some conservative leanings.

You seem to be the one who lives in a "little corner"

I think Obama has been a pretty damn good president for the most part, but I don't agree with all of his policies(like the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

Believe it or not, MSNBC used to be incredibly right-wing like you-know-who is now, it was around the mid-2000s when the Iraq war was at it's peak, Phil Donahue actually got his show cancelled for daring to speak out against the war, as the channels sponsors like General Electric started making waves about pulling their advertising if Phil was allowed to remain, so they kicked him to the curb. Somewhere down the line MSNBC evolved into the leftist network it is today.

Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:23 pm

Shade2

Second Unit Director

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 amPosts: 471

Re: American Politics

Vexer wrote:

She hasn't posted any "inaccurate facts"

She said, word-for-word: "If you already have insurance, Obamacare is not taking it away." That's a lie. Or she's an idiot and doesn't know what she's talking about. One or the other.

Vexer wrote:

I fail to see anything "asinine" or "insulting" about the system.

I didn't say the system was insulting; what's insulting is that our President claims this will help everyone when it clearly does not, and there's no evidence it helps any more people than the old system did.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum